INTRODUCTION: Rhinoplasty is one of the most common aesthetic surgeries, and dorsal hump reduction surgery is the most commonly applied type of surgery in Western countries. Every patient should be considered challenging based on the negative outcomes of this surgical procedure. Thus, aesthetic and plastic surgeons attempt to provide the safest and best resulting rhinoplasty techniques. OBJECTIVES: While performing dorsal preservation techniques in patients who had hump deformity but did not have septal deviation, deviation occurs due to surgery. In the present research, the author defines new suturing techniques for overcoming deviation associated with dorsal preservation surgeries. METHODS: Data from patients who underwent dorsal preservation rhinoplasty for the nasal hump were evaluated. Patients who had nasal hump deformities without nasal deviation deformities were included. Following these inclusion and exclusion criteria, the records of 43 patients were assessed. All patients included in the study completed the Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation questionnaire before surgery and at their one-year follow-up appointment. New suturing approaches such as "8" shaped and loop sutures were assessed. RESULTS: The median Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation score before surgery was 60.6. The median score after one year of surgery was 90.8. The Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation score significantly increased after surgery (p<0.001). Patient satisfaction was excellent in 90.47% of the included patients. CONCLUSIONS: These "8" suturing approaches present surgeons overcoming the possibility of deviation, which is associated with dorsal preservation techniques, such as push-down and let-down procedures in non-deviated noses. Further studies are needed to confirm the preliminary results of the present research. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
INTRODUCTION: Rhinoplasty is one of the most common aesthetic surgeries, and dorsal hump reduction surgery is the most commonly applied type of surgery in Western countries. Every patient should be considered challenging based on the negative outcomes of this surgical procedure. Thus, aesthetic and plastic surgeons attempt to provide the safest and best resulting rhinoplasty techniques. OBJECTIVES: While performing dorsal preservation techniques in patients who had hump deformity but did not have septal deviation, deviation occurs due to surgery. In the present research, the author defines new suturing techniques for overcoming deviation associated with dorsal preservation surgeries. METHODS: Data from patients who underwent dorsal preservation rhinoplasty for the nasal hump were evaluated. Patients who had nasal hump deformities without nasal deviation deformities were included. Following these inclusion and exclusion criteria, the records of 43 patients were assessed. All patients included in the study completed the Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation questionnaire before surgery and at their one-year follow-up appointment. New suturing approaches such as "8" shaped and loop sutures were assessed. RESULTS: The median Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation score before surgery was 60.6. The median score after one year of surgery was 90.8. The Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation score significantly increased after surgery (p<0.001). Patient satisfaction was excellent in 90.47% of the included patients. CONCLUSIONS: These "8" suturing approaches present surgeons overcoming the possibility of deviation, which is associated with dorsal preservation techniques, such as push-down and let-down procedures in non-deviated noses. Further studies are needed to confirm the preliminary results of the present research. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .